This thread is just too funny.

Originally posted by Loke666

As an EQ2 player: Muahahaha! Welcome to the club.

Selling cosmetic stuff for real money in a P2P game is a ripp off. Blizzard if anyone should afford to add features like this for free.

It seems like MMO companies all over are getting more and more greedy, but adding stuff like this is actually dangerous. If both F2P games and P2P games have RMT shops, why would anyone prefer P2P? The P2 games are still more solid but some games like DDO will be the real winner here.

Guildwars 2 will dominate the market if the other publishers keeps acting like this.

 

could nt have put it better myself . while this is only a couple of pets you would have to be a little bit nieve to think it will stop here . its not really just about the items its about the line thats been crossed .

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Ruyn

Blizzard needs to be very careful here.  Trust is a hard thing to re-earn after losing it.  If Blizz introduces a full RMT model for things like gear, etc you will hear a "disturbance" that would make SWG NGE or Trammel to UO's outrage seem like a whisper.

Players don't forget and seldom forgive.  If something like that happens then Blizzard really should be worrying about the success of their next title.

I have already crossed off SC2, D3, and the next Blizzard MMO, unless this move is backed away from.

 

You and other like minded individuals comprise a TINY percentage of the player base.  In the grand scheme of things, your presence and money will not be missed. This is trival, and if you allow it to deprive you of the enjoyment of the next few games, you have only yourself to blame.

Devil's advocate: Where is your statistical data that shows what exactly that percentage is? (Rhetorical question as you don't have any)

Fact of the matter is none of us know how this will affect those game sales until they happen and even then there isn't a way to measure how many people would have purchased the games but decided not to because of this move. A look can be taken by Blizzard internally comparing their average weekly or monthly loss of accounts and then compare them to the data gathered after this announcement. Of course, they aren't going to share that information with us if it's negative. If it's positive they will because companies (ahem, SOE) like to pat themselves on the back if a "controversial" move earns a profit.

So if we hear from Blizzard how well the shops do with lots of fireworks and faire, then it worked. Unless they lie to save face. If we don't hear from them, then they lost more account income than the shops could replace. Maybe, lol! Speculation keeps forums alive!

Think the little carebear fella got a bit excited about the thread...

Anyway, i wanted to address this whole notion of companies making the money to develop more games. That's bull. If im paying a sub is so the game i'm on will get updated and that i'll be receiving adequate customer service. I don't have to finance a company's next venture, specially not without getting a share. If a company makes enough PROFIT of one product its their call how they reinvest that, but no concern of mine. We are all paying for a service, and in full, so please stop those arguments about companies "needing" money to finance games. We shouldn't be footing the bill for that and they will charge us for the box whenever they do come out with something new.

Originally posted by Wraithone

 

Perspective is indeed the key here.  But make no mistake about it, certain aspects of the American economy are every bit as socialist(or in some cases fascist) as those of Europe.  This hysteria about a trival matter is just another example of symbolism over substance,  Not to mention I have yet to see someone supply a non subjective definition of "greed". It almost always translates to either "you have more than I do" or "You have more than I believe you should have". Neither are valid, and rely on appeals to emotion rather than reason.

People look at it as greed simply because WOW is not hurting for extra income. Companies like SOE made these moves in a lot of peoples opinion because they were financially hurting. You can not say that in Blizzards case. Personally if they want to give to a charity, why ask for their players to pay? Why not take it off the top of what they already receive from them? That is the essence of greed, IMO. They are a business and the backbone of big business is greed, i.e. taking more than you give.

As for the vanity fair in question, I personally do not care. Only when a company takes SOE or Cryptic type steps does it concern me. I do feel it is best to voice an opinion before such takes place rather than after.

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by Malickie

To be honest I do not think I have ever seen this much bitching about people bitching.

 

And people bitching, about the people who are bitching, about the people bitching here?

Something like that .

Originally posted by Malickie

Originally posted by Wraithone

 

Perspective is indeed the key here.  But make no mistake about it, certain aspects of the American economy are every bit as socialist(or in some cases fascist) as those of Europe.  This hysteria about a trival matter is just another example of symbolism over substance,  Not to mention I have yet to see someone supply a non subjective definition of "greed". It almost always translates to either "you have more than I do" or "You have more than I believe you should have". Neither are valid, and rely on appeals to emotion rather than reason.

 

People look at it as greed simply because WOW is not hurting for extra income. Companies like SOE made these moves in a lot of peoples opinion because they were financially hurting. You can not say that in Blizzards case. Personally if they want to give to a charity, why ask for their players to pay? Why not take it off the top of what they already receive from them? That is the essence of greed, IMO. They are a business and the backbone of big business is greed, i.e. taking more than you give.

As for the vanity fair in question, I personally do not care. Only when a company takes SOE or Cryptic type steps does it concern me. I do feel it is best to voice an opinion before such takes place rather than after.

Why should Blizzard wait until their financially hurting to maximize their profits? This sense of entitlement some people here have is so amusing, but so stupid...

Originally posted by Uronksur

Originally posted by Malickie

Originally posted by Wraithone

 

Perspective is indeed the key here.  But make no mistake about it, certain aspects of the American economy are every bit as socialist(or in some cases fascist) as those of Europe.  This hysteria about a trival matter is just another example of symbolism over substance,  Not to mention I have yet to see someone supply a non subjective definition of "greed". It almost always translates to either "you have more than I do" or "You have more than I believe you should have". Neither are valid, and rely on appeals to emotion rather than reason.

 

People look at it as greed simply because WOW is not hurting for extra income. Companies like SOE made these moves in a lot of peoples opinion because they were financially hurting. You can not say that in Blizzards case. Personally if they want to give to a charity, why ask for their players to pay? Why not take it off the top of what they already receive from them? That is the essence of greed, IMO. They are a business and the backbone of big business is greed, i.e. taking more than you give.

As for the vanity fair in question, I personally do not care. Only when a company takes SOE or Cryptic type steps does it concern me. I do feel it is best to voice an opinion before such takes place rather than after.

 

Why should Blizzard wait until their financially hurting to maximize their profits? This sense of entitlement some people here have is so amusing, but so stupid...

Who said they should? I was merely answering a question with an opinion on why I think people may be upset. What sense of entitlement are you referring to in my post?

Wonderful article.

But the vast majority of those who read it will have to first remove their head from their own ass before they are able to comprehend what it actually means.

99.9% of gamers are retarded.

Protest charity!

Idiots.

As long as they are only peddling cosmetic items/changes/etc then who cares? It doesn't effect gameplay or "balance".

Originally posted by rutaq

Blizzard had to invest in the infrastructure to support the buying of Vanity pets and it would be foolish not to expand it to sell other things and maybe even things to make your character more powerful.

It absolutely would be foolish to expand the system to selling things that make your character more powerful.  That would be crossing the line.  And Blizzard knows that or they would have done it already.  If that does happen, that is when everyone should be in an uproar.  This ridiculas over reaction to a completely optional feature that does not impact your character's standing in the game (well, someone might laugh at you if you have one of these pets) is uncalled for.
 

Save your righteous indignation for when it is actually justified.

Originally posted by johnspartan

Wonderful article.

But the vast majority of those who read it will have to first remove their head from their own ass before they are able to comprehend what it actually means.

99.9% of gamers are retarded.

Protest charity!

Idiots.

Who is protesting charity? I doubt you would see any bitching at all, if they were giving 100% of both pets to charity. Way to take peoples opinions completely out of context, and +1 more for calling them the idiots.

Originally posted by indiramourn

Originally posted by rutaq

Blizzard had to invest in the infrastructure to support the buying of Vanity pets and it would be foolish not to expand it to sell other things and maybe even things to make your character more powerful.

It absolutely would be foolish to expand the system to selling things that make your character more powerful.  That would be crossing the line.  And Blizzard knows that or they would have done it already.  If that does happen, that is when everyone should be in an uproar.  This ridiculas over reaction to a completely optional feature that does not impact your character's standing in the game (well, someone might laugh at you if you have one of these pets) is uncalled for.
 

Save your righteous indignation for when it is actually justified.

 

Well, once upon a time in a faraway timeline there was some talk about the inviability of Race Transfers... oh wait, they are here.

There was also this minor genre variation... F2P online games that only sold cosmetic items... until a later update, yet WoW can now be compared to those games prior to the non-cosmetic cash shop update, but with a monthly subscription.

Some people simply have a perspective of what a certain feature may lead to in the future, and that's why those people believe the line has been crossed (in addition to those who also believed they had crossed the line with TCG loot cards). Anyway the days of AAA games being fixed-expense will eventually be gone in the name of profit at this pace that has been going for some years already, the shopping mall virtual MMOs (don't feel like calling them MMORPGs as true RPG advancement was never tied to money spent IMO).

Please, this RMT QQ only feeds Robert Kotick's insatiable hunger.

Coming from a developer standpoint, of which I am.

This only opens the market to a wider audience of players, some who may have hesitated due to subscription fees on top of a box fee. The point of a company is to make as much as money as possible, if they are product based, they do this by making their product accessible to the largest market possible. Currently, for MMO players it is for those who will pay $15 a month, which is a very small portion of the gaming community to virtually every PC and some lucky XBOX/PS3 players.

Look at the population of Korea, a very large percentage of the population plays video games. Not only that, but they do this with ONLY micro-transactions clearly a sign that it works and that the gaming industry over their is flourishing. I mention Korea they more technologically advanced in terms of internet (1gb/s by 2012) - 14 out of 15 million inhabitants have access to internet in their homes . Internet gaming is huge, there are approximately 20,000 internet cafes in South Korea, which is slightly larger than the state of Indiana.

Don't judge the quality of RMT games from Korea to those of the future that emerge from the West. Games are tailored fort he population of which they are created for. In many cases we see Korean games localized to English for Western audience. While many players on the MMORPG.com forums may not enjoy them or think they are lacking is a point of perspective that is unnecessary. These games are clearly profitable enough for them to continue localizing and if they are profitable, clearly people are playing them and buying items or other services.

So whether you like it or not RMT will inevitably become the future, CCP sees it for Dust514 (and already has a form of it in EVE), Blizzard sees it (already has some too), BioWare has some for Dragon Age: Origins, ArenaNet has some for GuildWars. Don't you make yourself look stupid for thinking otherwise.

15 pages, and 215 comments, and the truth is apparent;  gamers in this genre deep down realize that Blizzard rules the roost. 

Originally posted by johnspartan

Wonderful article.

But the vast majority of those who read it will have to first remove their head from their own ass before they are able to comprehend what it actually means.

99.9% of gamers are retarded.

Protest charity!

Idiots.

How much did you donate this year in charity?
Let me guess..............zero dollars.

So you are waiting for Blizzard to start, what stops you going to your nearest Charity Shop and donate a bit of your hard earned cash?

Blizzard introduced the RMT with the charity attached, so naive people like you would not noticed the cash shop as such, then when the charity thing finishes, you still won't notice it, but they will start selling items from 100% profit.
They will keep introducing more and more stuff  in small steps so you keep not noticing it.
When they will end up selling entire T8 Epic Armors you still won't notice it.

So Blizzard will have achieved its goal to introduce full RMT without causing any uproar and that's all because people like you which are so simple not to see beyond the charity thing.

The point is not the charity, it's the fact they use charity to throw smoke on your face and cover the fact they are actually launching a cash shop which they gonna use for other purposes after that..........and people like you fall for it.
So who is the stupid............

Originally posted by Eben

15 pages, and 215 comments, and the truth is apparent;  gamers in this genre deep down realize that Blizzard rules the roost. 

Any company with a large following does, even the oh so evil SOE has an influence on the overall market. Hello captain obvious....

Originally posted by nkryptik

Originally posted by Cursedsei

 

Some people did moan about the TCG, but then again, the TCG is a stand-alone product, that they chose to incorporate some things (mainly fluff like biscuits, fiery steps, and the like) to try and get WoW players to try the card game out, I dont need to play WoW to like a Warcraft-based card game.

The Battle-fuel bots were part of the promotion for the WoW-inspired Mountain Dew Horde and Alliance drinks, it cost NOTHING to get the pet bot.

Blizzcon tickets are also a stand-alone thing. YOU dont have to go to Blizzcon, its just Blizzards way of saying "thanks for spending the money to come here", on top of EVERYTHING else that comes with the tickets.

 

 

Money spent to obtain in-game items is money spent I just do not understand why all this hate is drawn towards something that is going to help a charity when  none of the other were blow up to be this big of a deal.   You "spent money" to buy the Dew to get the robot in game, you "spent money" to buy the Trading Cards to get items in game, you "spent money" to buy the Blizzcon tickets to get the murloc or bear mount.  It is no different here you are "spending money" BUT instead of Blizz pocketing all of it the Make A Wish Foundation gets some, so I still cannot understand the hate being show so much towards this and not towards the other things.  Is it the fact that all these people actually hate the fact a child who may die at a really young age may get a wish granted to them that is causing all this hate to be shown or is it jealousy that is driving this hate fiasco?  The fact that I have a son with Autism I will proudly show my support for the Make a Wish Foundation by displaying these on ALL my accounts, I am not afraid to show in public that I supported a charity and no we never used his Wish option as there are many more children out there who will die that the funding will go towards giving them their wish, we are just fortunate our son's illness is chronic not terminal.

I do want to thank the haters because publicity for a non-profit organization like Make-A-Wish is getting by keeping this thread moving is awesome and all the money being raised  by this hate by people who never knew about these pets but now know and are buying them is worth millions.

Okay, let me state this again.

I bought mountain dew not because of Blizz, but because I like it, and have drank it long before WoW was a twinkle in their eyes. You didn't have to pay jack shit for the battlebot, you just had to go to the site and click on the "I want" button, thats it.

Blizzcon isn't WoWcon, they do cover more than just WoW, despite what your narrow view thinks. And trust me, no one spent 150+ dollars JUST for the mount, no, they spent that so they could go and see what all Blizzard had in development, and wanted to see it in person.

And as stated several times, the Card game is a stand-alone product endorsed BY Blizzard. People buy those cards cause they enjoy it, not just because there's a 1:1000000 chance of getting a loot card.

And ukron or whatever your name is (dont even care to double check my spelling), but its ironic calling me naive. Yes, I bought the game, but at the same time no where did I sign a contract with fine print that said my agreement meant I would want pets to be sold for 10 dollars.

Originally posted by mrroboto40

Please, this RMT QQ only feeds Robert Kotick's insatiable hunger.

Coming from a developer standpoint, of which I am.

This only opens the market to a wider audience of players, some who may have hesitated due to subscription fees on top of a box fee. The point of a company is to make as much as money as possible, if they are product based, they do this by making their product accessible to the largest market possible. Currently, for MMO players it is for those who will pay $15 a month, which is a very small portion of the gaming community to virtually every PC and some lucky XBOX/PS3 players.

Look at the population of Korea, a very large percentage of the population plays video games. Not only that, but they do this with ONLY micro-transactions clearly a sign that it works and that the gaming industry over their is flourishing. I mention Korea they more technologically advanced in terms of internet (1gb/s by 2012) - 14 out of 15 million inhabitants have access to internet in their homes . Internet gaming is huge, there are approximately 20,000 internet cafes in South Korea, which is slightly larger than the state of Indiana.

Don't judge the quality of RMT games from Korea to those of the future that emerge from the West. Games are tailored fort he population of which they are created for. In many cases we see Korean games localized to English for Western audience. While many players on the MMORPG.com forums may not enjoy them or think they are lacking is a point of perspective that is unnecessary. These games are clearly profitable enough for them to continue localizing and if they are profitable, clearly people are playing them and buying items or other services.

So whether you like it or not RMT will inevitably become the future, CCP sees it for Dust514 (and already has a form of it in EVE), Blizzard sees it (already has some too), BioWare has some for Dragon Age: Origins, ArenaNet has some for GuildWars. Don't you make yourself look stupid for thinking otherwise.

Then MMOs will eventually offer the opposite that is converting virtual currency into real currency - and we will be potentially finally  turning games into a job for the end-users, like Second Life and Project Entropia (don't really know if it's possible to make enough money to survive in real-life by just playing the game, just showing examples of RMT games that do offer the opposite path).

Then the MMO industry will generate so much money that hardware development will accelerate in a never seen before pace until we can plug-and-play our minds in these super-MMOs, one may call that the Matrix if one eventually appears to rule them all, while machines will be employed to do the real jobs required to maintain life.

Ok, the second paragraph may be kind of unrealistic currently but I place my coins into the first being the next phase of MMOs with their addictive power that is doing the impossible and making real-life potentially "boring".

While that may be true, that is still far ahead in the future, a lot farther away than microtransactions.

What I don't understand however is why game developers don't profit off the amount of people willing to buy in-game gold, and just create an in-game economy that can support it.

...

Originally posted by mrroboto40

While that may be true, that is still far ahead in the future, a lot farther away than microtransactions.

What I don't understand however is why game developers don't profit off the amount of people willing to buy in-game gold, and just create an in-game economy that can support it.

Why? Because thats just too easy an answer (and also means that the 500g you spent to have a blacksmith make you a sword, which he then kept, is now equal to $20 and now he's liable for theft.)

Originally posted by Malickie

Originally posted by Eben

15 pages, and 215 comments, and the truth is apparent;  gamers in this genre deep down realize that Blizzard rules the roost. 

 

Any company with a large following does, even the oh so evil SOE has an influence on the overall market. Hello captain obvious....

Right, right, must have missed the masses of outraged 'tards ranting about the death of the genre when SOE did this.  SOE lets people purchase max-level, max-geared toons, but two vanity pets...END OF THE GENRE, I SAY!! 

Originally posted by Eben

Originally posted by Malickie

Originally posted by Eben

15 pages, and 215 comments, and the truth is apparent;  gamers in this genre deep down realize that Blizzard rules the roost. 

 

Any company with a large following does, even the oh so evil SOE has an influence on the overall market. Hello captain obvious....

 

Right, right, must have missed the masses of outraged 'tards ranting about the death of the genre when SOE did this.  SOE lets people purchase max-level, max-geared toons, but two vanity pets...END OF THE GENRE, I SAY!! 

You can look it up SOE gets knocked on daily for everything they do, lol. From their TCG to their RMT it's all evil.

I'm paraphrasing btw..

Originally posted by mrroboto40

While that may be true, that is still far ahead in the future, a lot farther away than microtransactions.

What I don't understand however is why game developers don't profit off the amount of people willing to buy in-game gold, and just create an in-game economy that can support it.

Legal issues? Genre not evolved enough? Maybe even principles, kind of a resistance to this potential that you can see in the form of P2P games and those that do hate RMT in their games (whatever reason that is for others, my reason is because of the "future" I talked about in the last post which can be pretty convenient for solving some of the population growth problems). Shows there's still a demand for this kind of RMT-free (at least officially) games.

Can't really know if the companies (or even a secret developer in the team) aren't doing that already in the background though, through these "illegal" third-party websites. This way they can grab some of the potential profit while keeping some kind of balance, retaining the ones that hate this kind of thing (after all if they still consider them, it must mean either the player base or the game mechanics aren't making it viable out of the black market).